Recently in Work Category

The case of Ricci v. DeStefano involved 17 firefighters who had taken the qualifications exam to become firefighters. All passed, all were white, but one Latino, and the city invalidated the test because they feared a racial discrimination lawsuit. The court found that this was essentially "reverse" racism and violated Title XII.

The ruling yesterday to overturn Ricci v. DeStefano was another bad decision in a series of bad decisions by the SCOTUS that will have implications for communities of color, women and poor people. Legal Momentum tells us why,

The Court created a new, more stringent standard for employment discrimination claims in striking down the New Haven Fire Department's attempt to ensure that its promotional exam did not discriminate against Black and Latino candidates. We believe that the standard articulated by the Court reflects a flawed interpretation of Title VII and is contrary to congressional intent.

Irasema Garza, President of Legal Momentum, stated: "Employment discrimination continues to be a major problem. To this day, women and minorities remain egregiously under-represented in many employment sectors. Astoundingly, the Court's decision acknowledges this fact and yet requires employers to avoid policies and practices that would help to remedy this discrimination. This decision will make it far more difficult for women and minorities to get good jobs in fields that continue to exclude them, such as firefighting, and for employers to eliminate barriers that have proved discriminatory in their effect."

Further, as a supporter of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court, Legal Momentum strongly disagrees with those who might use the Court's decision to imply that Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues in the Second Circuit erred in their ruling below. The Second Circuit panel of which Judge Sotomayor was a part acted with appropriate restraint in applying the precedent as it existed at that time. The matter before the Supreme Court involved issues of first impression and the Second Circuit's opinion was consistent with the views of four Justices on the Supreme Court as well as with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice.

Also, what about the possibility that Alito was also racially biased in making this decision? As Adam aptly asks at Tapped, why is racial discrimination only considered an offense when it is women or people of color being biased against whites?

...but is he really the only one? Public moral outcries of elected officials sexual behavior is complex, often tedious and not really in the name of justice. The prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, likes to hire woman to attend parties and do who knows what else. Barbara Montereale, one of the women in the much reprinted picture of two women photographing each other in Berlusconi's bathroom sent the pictures to the press to be published for the truth to come out. She was paid and flown down to spend time with him. The Italian authorities are starting an investigation according to the Telegraph UK.

The three women, whose accounts of their evening with Mr Berlusconi apparently largely corroborate each other, have been questioned by police in Bari who are investigating Mr Tarantini for allegedly inciting prostitution.

Mr Berlusconi faces increasing pressure to explain whether he knew if the women were being paid to attend his parties and whether he slept with a prostitute.

He is under attack not only from the press and the opposition but also the Roman Catholic Church.

I don't actually care what the Catholic church deems moral and immoral, or what makes them upset. This is not a matter of morality, but a question of exploitation and the use of women by men in power. And this is not the only story, it is a trend with men in power to hire women to do whatever they want with and their bloated sense of self and ego that comes with having so much power creates a vacuum where anything is for sale and purchase. Isn't that what happened with Eliot Spitzer?

I find moral panic and outrage over the often grotesque, exploitative sexual behavior of politicians hilarious. My instinct is to suggest that it is a private matter, just as I don't want you to talk about my private sex life, I don't think anyone's should be fodder for news material. On the other hand, that fact that stories like this come up over and over again merely shows us what men in power think is legitimate behavior. This is not a matter of "i gotcha," but more about the ways entitlement plays out with our beloved "statesmen."

USA Today columnist David Zincenko had an op-ed today titled "Decline of the American Male":

Like most Americans, I look at the news about the economy, the need for health care reform and our growing national debt, and I worry about how we're going to escape the recession.

But as someone who has spent his career working to save an endangered species men I have another worry on my mind: What are we going to do about the Great He-cession?

This troubling trend has been going on for several years, but it really picked up speed at the end of 2008. Of the 5.2 million people who've lost their jobs since last summer, four out of five were men. Some experts predict that this year, for the first time, more American women will have jobs than men. And that's just furthering the decline of the endangered male. (Emphasis mine)

That's right, folks - a "he-cession." While men in fact are losing jobs at a higher rate than women, what the author isn't taking into account is that not only are women paid less and generally have worse jobs than men, but are economically behind men in so many other ways. Dana Goldstein actually took this on last week in the American Prospect:

Historically, men suffer the majority of job losses during recessions, so policy-makers focus their efforts on getting men back to work. But when the economy picks up again, women typically do not share equally in the gains, in part because they aren't equally employed in high-paying fields. And unemployment isn't the only indicator of economic struggle. Women are one-third more likely than men to have sub-prime mortgages, nearly 60 percent of impoverished children are living in female-headed households, and the poverty rate is higher among women than it is among men of any race. Undergirding all that is the stubbornness of the pay gap between men and women, meaning that women still earn just 78 cents on the male dollar--even for the same work, with the same educational background and number of years on the job. Advocates say that given these disparities, it is actually women who are harder hit by the recession, despite more staggering joblessness among men.

What bothers me the most is the author's implication that men are being "left behind" not really because of the recession, but as a sacrifice of women's progression: "Women have gained in the past century, while men have fallen behind."

It's one thing to talk seriously about how the recession has effected the many groups of people who are suffering from it (including so many men who have lost their jobs), but to use it as a way to push some post-patriarchal nonsense is just ridiculous. Or should I say, "he-diculous." Jesus.

This is a guestblog from Audacia Ray of Waking Vixen and author of Naked on the Internet.

This past week it was revealed that there are some new cases of HIV within the adult industry in Los Angeles. The LA Times and LAist have both covered the story, as have adult industry media outlets AVN and Xbiz. A stunning majority of straight porn companies do not require condoms and actively discourage their use - in the business this is called "condom optional" which is euphemistic for "you either perform without a condom or you don't perform for this company." The gay porn industry has slightly different standards than the straight porn business. Gay porn companies do not require testing, with the idea that it is an invasion of privacy and HIV shouldn't prevent people from working/having sex, but the more reputable companies require condom use. The Gay Video News Awards (GayVN) will not consider a film for an award if there is "barebacking" (sex without a condom) in it.

I worked in and around the sex industry (porn and other sectors) for several years, so my take on the news of recent HIV cases and the dynamics of health, safety, and responsibility within the porn business is colored by my experiences in and frustrations with the business. I directed and produced a bisexual feature porn film, The Bi Apple, which was shot in NYC in summer 2006 and released in February 2007. It went on to win a Feminist Porn Award for Hottest Bisexual Scene and was nominated for Best Bisexual Video at the GayVN Awards (where, by the way, it was pretty fun to be the lone girl director). The company I made the film for required performers to be negative for HIV, chlamydia, and gonorrhea, and I required all performers to wear condoms for vaginal and anal sex and the option to use condoms for oral sex (no one opted to negotiate condom use for oral). I also paid for tests for the performers who weren't working regularly and didn't have a recent test on hand.

Richard Brown, from American Express talks about the intersection between corporate philanthropy and leadership development.

Janelle Shubert, from Babson College, talks about social entrepreneurship. Babson College, which she claims is the premier educational institution globally for social entrepreneurship, is based on three principles: people, planet, profit. According to Ashoka, one of the leading organizations on social entrepreneurship:

Social entrepreneurs are individuals with innovative solutions to society's most pressing social problems. They are ambitious and persistent, tackling major social issues and offering new ideas for wide-scale change.

Rather than leaving societal needs to the government or business sectors, social entrepreneurs find what is not working and solve the problem by changing the system, spreading the solution, and persuading entire societies to take new leaps.

Janelle says that her hope is that women worldwide continue to have access to employment and training, income and knowledge. If you're interested in S.E., you should also check out Echoing Green, the Schwab Foundation, and the Skoll Foundation. For a critique of the SE framework, check out this coverage of Dr. Paul Farmer's speech on the subject.

Maria Torres from the NYC Economic Development Corporation is up next. She talks about the Five Borough Economic Opportunity Plan-(1) create jobs today, (2) diversify economy so we can create more jobs for tomorrow, (3) more affordable housing.

How can women take advantage of this? Check out government partnerships with organizations like Nontraditional Employment for Women.

She also talks about Opportunity NYC, a somewhat controversial program aimed at helping families break out of cycles of intergenerational poverty by paying them incentives to reinforce certain behaviors. It will be evaluated for effectiveness at the end of a five year stint.

"The big message is that we think opportunity exists, that this is the best time to invest in New York City, to invest in women."

Next up is Sara Gould, of the Ms. Foundation.

She starts by talking about women's funds and the network which the Ms. Foundation is a part of, The Women's Funding Network.

She also talks about the ways in which this economic downturn has often been framed as a men's issue, but she reminds us that this is also because of years of gender segregation in the workforce. We can't talk about all women in the labor market as one group because women of different races and classes have such different experiences. Women still comprise the majority of low-wage workers. Women are more likely to be without health or employment insurance. We are still living with the pay gap, and we are still living with this extreme occupational segregation. There are 27 million women and children living in poverty in the U.S. Unemployment for female heads of household is 10%, increased over the last year, of course.

Ms. Foundation, the oldest women's foundation (36 years old), is taking a new approach to their work which they're calling "creating connections." It is about lifting up leaders out of issue-area silos, being able to fund at the intersections, and build great power to bring about policy and cultural change to benefit women of color, poor women, and in so doing, benefit everyone. This means less restricted money and more funding at the race/class/gender intersections.

"We believe in funding sustained civic engagement, we believe in funding the trusted messengers in communities, we believe in getting resources to the ground."

Don't miss this great group of articles over at The American Prospect about women's economic opportunities and the recession. An excerpt:

It is time for a different conversation about working women--one that considers the choices and careers of professional women with children, yes. But one that devotes far more time and energy to the needs of the majority of women workers--those without advanced degrees or professional salaries who must work to support their families--and to crafting policies that work for them.

Related posts:
Supreme Court: Pregnancy discrimination A-OK!
Pregnancy Discrimination Galore at Bloomberg LP
Quick Hit: Employers get real (discriminatory)
Pregnancy discrimination complaints at record levels
Pregnancy discrimination on the rise
Double whammy

Approximate transcript after the jump.

Not only do female unionized workers earn more, but this great op-ed in the Anchorage Daily News by a single working mother gives us personal account of why unions can be a pretty damn big feminist issue:

I became a single mother of an 8 year-old son while I was serving in the United States Army. This was a very frightening experience for me. My son's dad was not around to help raise him. After I left the Army, I found a job working for a company where women had no opportunity to advance. I was fortunate to then land a union job. I started work with a 90-day probation period, and on my 89th day I had an accident for which I was fired.

Even though I didn't have grievance rights, my union fought for me. The accident wasn't my fault, but my employer argued I was responsible. Because of my union steward, however, the mediator decided to reinstate me. To begin with, the accident wasn't my fault, and the mediator also pointed out that there were four men who were involved in accidents in their first 90 days and weren't fired. Would I have gotten my job back if I didn't have a union fighting for me? Was this worth every penny of my dues? You're darn right it was. I love my job and I raised my son with no worries. I earn a fair day's pay, decent benefits and have job security. Shouldn't everybody have this?

The op-ed was written in efforts to get Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski to support the Employee Free Choice Act, which she has recently said she would consider negotiating.

Read more here about why the Employee Free Choice Act is a feminist issue and take action here.

We've gotten a few emails from you college kiddos making your final jaunt across that stage for the very coveted and damn expensive diplomas. You're excited. You're scared. You're maybe a little hungover. You've asked us for advice on getting jobs in the feminist/blogging/writing worlds, and so I thought I would offer a few little things that I've learned the hard way in case they can be helpful:

1. Don't just apply to law school because it feels like something that you can tell your aunts and uncles at your graduation parties or makes you feel safe in this economy. Do it if you really want to be a lawyer.

2. You've heard it before from us. You'll hear it again from us. Negotiate. Even in this economy. Even with women bosses, who can sometimes be the worst about giving you the "oh, we're a poor organization, we couldn't possibly, we thought you were down" rigmarole. The worst they can say is no. And you shouldn't have to live off of Ramen noodles.

3. Take your work seriously, but have a sense of humor about yourself.
It's really important to be confident--you're a badass and you know it--but also to be humble and have a good laugh at yourself in the workplace.

4. Seek feedback. If you act like you'll break if people give you pointers, then you'll never improve or being more self-aware.

5. There's nothing wrong with combining creative or "intellectual" work with a job that pays the bills. I still think about waitressing sometimes because (a) I loved waitressing and (b) I loved the feeling of going home with cold, hard cash in my hand. Writing and activist work can sometimes feel like one long exercise in delayed gratification. Sometimes it's awesome to do something straight-forward, physical, and food-related.

6. Be patient. I know you hate that one, as did I, but it's just necessary. My first job out of college was nightmarish (think racism, plastic surgery, chain smoking in a tiny office, and control freak all packed into one tiny body of a boss), but I got through it.

7. Health insurance is important. I wish it weren't, but it is. Check out Healthy New York-type programs for low income people in your area. That's what I did for the first few years. Now I'm on Freelancer's Union health insurance.

8. Seek out mentors. Thank them often. Teach them about the world wide web and they'll love you.

9. House parties are way cheaper than going out to bars.

10. Just because you want to "do good" doesn't mean you should work at a nonprofit. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of jobs in the nonprofit sector that are awesome, but I think this is a default for so many young feminists who want to have meaningful work that ends up feeling really disappointing. What's more important than the 501c3 status is the quality of the relationships you can have at that office and the access to interesting work. And if you're drawn to the nonprofit sector, don't miss out on The Revolution Will Not Be Funded. I'm reading it right now and it's sploding my brain.

When Carol Sarler shares the following info over at the Daily Mail, you might assume that she'd then make an effort to defend the perfectly reasonable right of all women to decide when, if, and how they have children (IF being the operative word here):

Research conducted over six years shows that far from bosses and colleagues always being suspicious of a working mother, the opposite is becoming true: it is the childless woman who is regarded as cold and odd.

As a result, it is these single-track careerists who are increasingly likely to be vilified, refused jobs and denied promotion because many employers believe them to lack what the study calls 'an essential humanity'.

Instead, this incredibly insensitive and just plain discriminatory writer, does everything in her literary powers to chastise any woman who doesn't want children:

It's not the mothers, for a start, who are going to turn up late and hungover after a night on the razz; they'll have been up, dressed and alert for hours, having cooked a family breakfast and delivered their children to school. On time.

It's not the mothers, usually, who run the office bitch-fest.

They're not there to compete for the attentions of the male executives; they're there to get out of the house; they're there because they genuinely enjoy some adult company; and they're there because they have mouths to feed other than their own and shoes to buy for someone else's feet.

I'm the kind of lady who has known she wanted kids since she was a kid. It's just something I've felt in my bones. But it is exactly because it is such an intuitive, personal feeling that I know it isn't necessarily, nor should it be, a shared sentiment. Raising children is a huge sacrifice--financially, emotionally, in terms of sleep and autonomy--and one that, yes, a lot of women and men are up for, but it is beyond understandable when folks don't want to procreate. It actually makes more rational sense in a certain way.

If you love your childless life, and don't feel the pull to procreate, why in the world would you do it? So you could be a better worker, as Sarler bizarrely suggests? So you can cease your boozing? So you can stop looking for a man (because, ahem, all women are heterosexual and all mothers are married. Wha?!)? So you can stop being such a bitch (this, too, makes perfect sense...childless women, who get eight restful hours of sleep, great sex, and can spend what would have been diaper money on a massage or a great meal are always such bitches!)?

Suffice it to say that this Sarler gal has gotta a lot of hate mail coming her way. And I hope it's not just from those wacky childless women, but from all of us who champion every woman's right to choose about children.

Thanks to multiple readers for giving up the heads up.